1. Chaudhary Khalid Rasheed, J. The above titled writ petition filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 and petition under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. raise common question of law, hence ware- heard together and are the subject matter of this judgment.
2. The petitioners have challenged FIR No. 110/2021 registered at Police Station Chinari in the offences under Sections 430/427, 34-PC and 14 ERA on 21.11.2021 through Writ Petition No. 4106/2021 and-FIR No. 164/2021 registered at Police Station Pallandri in the offences under Sections 341/427, 147/148, 149/506 and 337-A1-APC 09.08.2021 has been called into question vide Application No. 215/2021 on the ground that the impugned FIRs are subsequent regarding the incident which have already been reported to the Police and Police had taken cognizance of the, offences after registration of first information report, thus the impugned FIRs being second one are liable to be quashed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the fact;' narrated in their pleadings and while relying upon a judgement of the apex Court of Pakistan reported as PLD 2018 SC 595 zealously pressed, into service that second FIR cannot be registered regarding an incident which has already been registered arid if any conflicting version is agitated before Police with regard to the same occurrence then police is duty bound to investigation the said in the already registered FIR instead of registration of second FIR, thus, they solicited the quashment of FIRs on the basis of Ratio Decidendi of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, supra: The learned AAG has controverted the stance taken by the petitioners and submitted that there is no bar regarding registration of the second FIR an per dictum of the apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case with utmost care and caution.
5. In the light of the pleadings of the parties and arguments advanced at bar, the question which emerges for resolution by this Court is, whether second FIR can be registered if divergent version is brought before police concerning commission of cognizable offences regarding which already an FIR has been registered by the police in exercise of powers conferred under Section 154, Cr.P.C. or not. This question has already been resolved by the learned Supieme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in the judgments reported as 2011 SCR 50 and 2014 SCR 1049 and held that when a counter version regarding commission of cognizable offence is brought before the police, the In-charge Police Station has no option except to enter the same in the relevant register and conduct investigation as required by law. It is further observed by the apex Court that directions contained in Section 154, Cr.PC. are mandatory in nature, thus SHO is bound by law to follow the same in letter and spirit. Under Article 42(b) of the AJK interim Constitution 1974, decisions of the Supreme Court have got binding force on all Courts including the High Court. When the Supreme Court interpreted the effect of any provision of the Constitution or a law or its own judgment, it becomes the law of the land hence, not open to the Courts subordinate to the Supreme Court to differ from such interpretation and all the Courts have to examine a controversy in the light of such interpretation, unless the Supreme Court itself overrules it through its subsequent decision but as long as a judgment of the Supreme Court remains in field, it has to be given effect to by all the Courts including this Court. Reliance can be placed on 2005 SCR 314 and 2006 SCR 120. In presence of a blatant dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the supra referred judgments that when an aggrieved party brings a version that accurate facts have been suppressed and occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged in the previous FIR, it is the duty of concerned SHO to register a second FIR, this Court cannot interpret the provisions of law in derogation to the interpretation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and could not held that registration of second FIR is illegal or misuse of powers by police.
6. The learned Counsel for the parties have mainly based their stance on judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as PLD 2018 SC 595, wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that when an FIR is registered regarding commission of cognizable offence then no separate FIR is required to be recorded for any new version of the same incident brought into the notice of Investigating Officer and all subsequent or divergent versions of the same occurrence have to be recorded and investigated in the same FIR. Guidance can be taken from the judgments recorded by the Supreme Court of Pakistan but every observation of the Supreme Court of Pakistan has got no binding force on Courts in Azad. Kashmir especially when the view taken by the Supreme Court of Pakistan is divergent to the version laid down by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir because any interpretation made by this Court divergent to the interpretation made by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir would tantamount to violate the provisions of the Interim Constitution, 1974 which is not warranted by law, (PLD 1978 SC
(MK) 161) So in view of above stated position and clear interpretation of the provisions of law by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan cannot be followed and FIR cannot be quashed on the pretext of judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
7. It is. also pertinent to write here that Writ Petition No. 4106/2021 is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that an alternate remedy in shape of application under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C was available to the petitioners and in presence of an alternate remedy writ petition is not maintainable.
8. The sum arid substance of the above discussion is, finding no essence the captioned writ petition as well as petition 'ender Section 561-A, Cr.P.C are hereby dismissed